People who say that banning a particular gun will not result in banning more, or in confiscation, should watch them.

It can (and does) happen. Gun registries and propaganda are a big part of it. The Brits are living proof, as they have warned us. Their right to bear arms and protect themselves was taken away in increments over years, from pistols to rifles and shotguns, all in the name of a "safer" UK, using the same arguments now being used in the US.

Now only criminals have guns, and even those who don't are fearless in the commission of crimes.

re: An Interesting Article Comparing England and The United States(Posted by Alltheway Tigers! on 1/19/13 at 9:22 am to NimbleCat)

quote:Shirley Best, owner of the Rolander Fashion boutique whose clients include the daughter of the Princess Royal, was ironing some garments when two youths broke in. They pressed the hot iron into her side and stole her watch, leaving her badly burnt. “I was frightened to defend myself,” said Miss Best. “I thought if I did anything I would be arrested.”

re: An Interesting Article Comparing England and The United States(Posted by Zahrim on 1/19/13 at 9:46 am to NimbleCat)

quote:Between the introduction of pistol permits in 1903 and the banning of handguns after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Britain has had a century of incremental gun control—“sensible measures that all reasonable people can agree on.” And what’s the result? Even when you factor in America’s nutcake jurisdictions with the crackhead mayors, the overall crime rate in England and Wales is higher than in all 50 states, even though over there they have more policemen per capita than in the U.S., on vastly higher rates of pay installing more video surveillance cameras than anywhere else in the Western world. Robbery, sex crimes, and violence against the person are higher in England and Wales; property crime is twice as high; vehicle theft is higher still; the British are 2.3 times more likely than Americans to be assaulted, and three times more likely to be violently assaulted. Between 1973 and 1992, burglary rates in the U.S. fell by half. In Britain, not even the Home Office’s disreputable reporting methods (if a burglar steals from 15 different apartments in one building, it counts as a single crime) can conceal the remorseless rise: Britons are now more than twice as likely as Americans to be mugged; two-thirds will have their property broken into at some time in their lives. Even more revealing is the divergent character between U.K. and U.S. property crime: In America, just over 10 percent of all burglaries are “hot burglaries”—committed while the owners are present; in Britain, it’s over half. Because of insurance-required alarm systems, the average thief increasingly concludes that it’s easier to break in while you’re on the premises. Your home-security system may conceivably make your home more safe, but it makes you less so.

re: An Interesting Article Comparing England and The United States(Posted by ChineseBandit58 on 1/19/13 at 9:54 am to Zahrim)

quote:In America, just over 10 percent of all burglaries are “hot burglaries”—committed while the owners are present; in Britain, it’s over half. Because of insurance-required alarm systems, the average thief increasingly concludes that it’s easier to break in while you’re on the premises. Your home-security system may conceivably make your home more safe, but it makes you less so.

This is chilling.

Why this is not the lead story in the discussion about these new regulation is a mystery to me.

You would think that an active journalist industry would be doing some fact-checking and challenging arguments made by either side of the issue rather than just being a megaphone for one side.